Ministrie as also with power to Place and Displace Plant and Transplant Ministers without regarde had either to the previous Call of the People or to the Mission of any Church Judicatory and of subjecting of the Exercise of the Ministrie wholly unto their will and pleasure not to mentione the severity breathed out in that Letter against the Assemblings of the Lord's people 6. It is manifest from what is already marked that the Indulged Brethren did owne that Letter of the Kings as the onely rise and fountaine of the favour which they were made partakers of and therefore did not take the Indulgence onely from the Councel but from the King principally as the onely spring thereof conveying the same to them through the channel and medium of the Councel who did nothing but by vertue of that Letter and in obedience thereunto Whence we see that there is no ground to abstract the stream from the fountaine or to think that these Ministers could imagine that they were onely to notice what the Councel did and no more for as they neither did this so it were unreasonable to think they could do so 7. They acknowledged here that as to the liberty of the publick exercise of their Ministrie they were onely beholden unto this Indulgence for for this cause they give thanks And thus did tacitely grant that there ought to be no publick Exercise of the Ministrie without liberty granted from the Magistrate whereby they not onely condemned all these faithful Ministers who ventured without that liberty granted to preach publickly where occasion offered in houses or in the fields but they likewise condemned Christ and his Apostles the greatest of Conventicle-keepers So like-wise they do tacitely here grant that when the Magistrate prohibiteth the publick Exercise of the Ministery for longer or shorter time he must not be disobeyed whereby the Magistrate hath the power yeelded to him of Suspending and Deposeing Ministers from the exercise of their function It is true Magistrates can hinder the peacable publick exercise or free publick exercise by outward force and constraint but they speak not here of the freedome of peacable publick exercise but simplie of the freedome of publick exercise of the Ministrie Our own Church-history tels us how famous Mr. Bruce was cast in a fever through terrour of conscience for promising silence but for ten dayes though in hopes of greater liberty 8. It is observable here how thankful they are for partaking alone as chosen out from their Brethren of this favour whileas this very act of separating them from their Brethren should have been a sufficient ground for them to have rejected the tendered supposed favour seeing by the accepting thereof in this separated way they suffered themselves to be divided from their Brethren contrarie to their sworn Covenants not to speak of the stigma they received thereby 9. They say That they received their Ministrie from Iesus Christ. But why was it not said as some of them if I be not misinformed desired onely from I. C When this was designedly and deliberatly left out let all the world judge whether in this they carried as faithful Ministers of the Gospel or not for my part I cannot but judge that this was a manifest betraying of the cause and a giving up of all to the Magistrate for hereby they declared that in their judgements either they had their Ministrie from others as well as from Christ that is from the Magistrate as well as from Christ and that in a co-equality and co-ordination or else that they had it not from Christ immediatly but from men from the Magistrates in subordination to Christ. Now neither of these can assort with truth and with our Principles Not the former for then Christ should not be sole King but halfe and the Magistrate should have the halfe of Christs Thron Crown Scepter and Glory which were blasphemy to think Not the latter for Magistracy is not subordinat in a direct line unto Christ as Mediator nor hath Christ substitute the Magistrat as his Vicar nor hath he given to him as such a ministerial power under him to convey ministerially in respect of the Subjects or with a ministerial Authority as his Servants what power of Mission he giveth to his Ministers Magistrates as such act not ministerially or with a ministerial Authority in reference to their Subjects but with a Coactive Autocratorical and Architectonick Power and Authority If it be said that they reserved only to the Magistrate hereby the power to grant the liberty of the free exercise but they meant that they received the Ministrie it self from Jesus Christ alone I answere had they spoken so we might then have understood them so But though they had said so the cause had been betrayed for if they have their Ministrie from Christ alone they must also have the free exercise of the same from him If Christ give the Office he giveth the power to exercise the Office And if they depend upon others in reference to the Exercise they in so far rob Christ of what is his due hold that of men which they should hold of Christ alone No man needs to say here that by this means we take away the Power of Church-Judicatories by whom Ministers receive both the Office and the Power of its exercise For what Church-Judicatories do herein they do ministerially under Christ and Christ by them conveyeth the Office to such and such a Person and with the Office a power to exercise it according to the Rules of the Gospel and notwithstanding of this these Officers may and must say that they receive their Ministrie onely from Christ Jesus But this cannot be said if the Magistrate be substitute in the place of Church-Officers either in reference to the Office it self or in reference to its free Exercise because no Magistrate as such as is said acteth with a Ministerial Power under Christ in a right line of subordination And therefore when they keeped out the word onely they did plainely declare that they held the Ministrie partly of the Magistrate If it be said that they would hereby onely have reserved to the Magistrat power to grant the Peacable Publick Exercise of the Ministrie I would answere that though they had meaned thus yet they might safely and should have said that they received their Ministrie only from Christ for I cannot be said to receive my Ministrie from every one who can hinder my peacable publick exercise thereof otherwayes I must be said to receive it in part from Satan and his Instruments who can hinder my peacable publick exercise thereof So that use what devices men can to cover this matter a manifest betraying of the cause will break thorow and a receding from received and sworn Principles will be visible 10. They said They had full prescriptions from Iesus Christ to regulat them in their Ministrie Who then can justifie them in receiving other Prescriptions from the Magistrate and such
in reference to the Indulgence that we may see with what friendly aspect this Supremacie looketh towards the Indulgence and with what Veneration the Indulgence respecteth this Supremacie to the end it may appear how the Indulgence hath contributed to the establishment of this Supra-Papal Supremacie and how the Accepters thereof stand chargeable with a Virtual and Material Approbation of and Consent to the dreadful Usurpation committed by this Supremacie In order to which we would know that this Act of Supremacy made Anno 1669. was not made upon the account that the Supremacie in Church-affairs had never been before screwed up to a sufficient height in their apprehensions for upon the matter little that is material is here asserted to belong unto this Ecclesiastical Supremacie which hath not been before partly in more general partly in more special and particular termes plainly enough ascribed unto this Majestie or presumed as belonging to his Majest In the 11. Act. Parl. 1. Anno 1661. where the Oath is framed he is to be acknowledged Only supreme Governour over all persons and in all causes and that his Power and Iurisdiction must not be declined So that under all Persons and all Causes Church-officers in their most proper and intrinsecal ecclesiastick Affaires and Administrations are comprehended and if his Majest shall take upon him to judge Doctrine matters of Worship and what is most essentially Ecclesiastick he must not be declined as an incompetent Judge We finde also Act. 4. Sess. 2. Parl. 1. Anno 1662. which is againe renewed Act. 1. Anno 1663. that his Majestie with advice and consent of his Estates appointeth Church-censures to be infflicted for Church-transgression as plainly and formally as ever a General Assembly or Synod did in these words That whatsoever Minister shall without a lawful excuse to be admitted by his Ordinary absent himself from the visitation of the Diocess or who shall not according to his duty concurre therein or who shall not give their assistance in all the Acts of Church-discipline as they shall be required thereto by the Archbishop or Bishop of the Diocess every such Minister N. B. so offending shall for the first fault be suspeÌ„ded from his Office and Benefice until the next Diocesian meeting and if he amend not shall be deprived But which is more remarkable in the first Act of that Second Session Anno 1662. for the Restituâ—ion and Re-establishment of Prelats we have several things tending to cleare how high the Supremacie was then exalted The very Act beginneth thus for as much as the ordering and disposal of the external Government and Policy of the Church doth properly belong unto his Majestie as an inherent right of the Crown by vertue of his Royal Prerogative and Supremacie in causes Ecclesiastical This is the same that is by way of statute asserted in the late Act 1669. In the same Act it is further said That whatever this sure is large and very comprehensive shall be determined by his Maj. with the advice of the Archbishops and Bishops and such of the Clergy as shall be nominated by his Maj. in the external Government and Policy of the Church the same consisting with the standing Lawes of the Kingdom shall be valide and effectual And which is more in the same Act all preceeding Acts of Parl are rescinded by which the sole and only Power and Iurisdiction within the Church doth stand in the Church and in the General Provincial and Presbyterial Assemblies and Kirk-Sessions And all Acts of Parliament or Councel which may be interpreted to have given any Church-Power Iurisdiction or Government to the Office-bearers of the Church their respective Meetings other than that which acknowledgeth a dependence upon and subordination to the Soveraign â—â—wer of the King as Supreme So that we see by vertue of this Act all Church-Power and Jurisdiction whatsomever is made to be derived from to have a dependance upon and to be in subordination to the Soveraigne power of the King as Supream and not to stand in the Church Whereby the King is made only the Founâ—aine of Church-power and that exclusive as it would seem even of Christ Of whom there is not the least mention made and for whom is not made the least reserve imaginable So in the 4. Act. of the third Session of Parl. Anno 1663. For the Establishment and Constitution of a National Synod We finde it said that the ordering and disposal of the external Government of the Church and the nomination of the Persons by whose Advice Matters relating to the same are to be setled doth belong to his Maj. as an inherent right of the Crown by vertue of his prerogative Râ—yal and Supream Authority in causes Ecclesiastical And upon this ground is founded his power to appoint a National Synod to appoint the only constiâ—uent Members thereof as is there specified to call continue and dissolve the same when he will to limit all their Debates Consultations and Determinations to such matters and causes as he thinketh fit and several other things there to be seen Seing by these Particulars it is manifest and undeniable that this Ecclesiastick Supremacie was elevated presumptively before the Year 1669. to as high a degree as could be imagined It may be enquired why then was this Act made Anno 1669 I answere This act so I conceive was not framed so much to make any addition to that Church power which they thought did Iure Coronae belong orginally and fundamentally unto the King for that was already put almost beyond the reach of any additional supply though not in one formal and expressive Statutory Act As to forme the same when screwed up to the highest into a plaine and positive formal Statute having the force of a Law for all uses and ends and particularly to salve in point of Law the Councel in what they did in and about the Indulgence according to the desire and command of the King in his Letter in regaâ—rd that the granting of this Indulgence did manifestly repugne to and counteract several anteriour Acts of Parliament and was a manifest breach and violation of Lawes standing in full force and unrepealed which neither their place nor his Maj. could in Law warrand them to do by his Letter That the granting of the Indulgence did thus in plaine termes repugne to standing Lawes I thus make good In the Act of Rëstitution of Prelates Anno 1662. Prelates are restored unto the exercise of their Episcopal function Presidence in the Church power of Ordination Inflicting of Censures and all other Acts of Church Discipline And as their Episcopal power is there asserted to be derived from his Maj. so withal it is expresly said that the Church-power and jurisdiction is to be Regulated and Authorized in the Exercise thereof by the Archbishops and Bishops who are to put order to all Ecclesiastical matters and causes and to be accountable to his Maj. for their administrations Whence it is manifest that the
floweth to the Prelat And what difference is there I pray betwixt the Prelates Collation which possibly was freer of concomitant Instructions Rules and Directions how to regulate them in the Exercise of the Ministrie than was the Indulgence and the Councils Collation as to the Fountaine the Kings Supremacie from whence both do flow By vertue of Power descending from the Head to the Left arme the Prelates is the Episcopal Collation granted and by vertue of Power descending from the same Head to the Right arme the Council is the Council their Collation granted 10. Who homologate a Supream Authoritie in the King over all Persons and all Causes Ecclesiastick by vertue whereof he may Settle Enact and Emit such Constitutions Acts and Orders concerning the Persons imployed in the External Government of the Church and concerning Meetings and Matters Ecclesiastick as he in his Royal Wisdom shall think fit they homologate the Supremacie This is certaine for this is the Supremacy as appeareth by the Act explicatory But so it is that the Accepters of the Indulgence do homologate this Supream Authoritie in the King Which I thus prove Such Ecclesiastick Persons as are willingly disposed of by the Supream Authoritie in the King over all Persons and Causes Ecclesiastick and goe to what places he by his Council appointeth for the exercise of their Ministrie and of Church-Government and withall receive Orders Acts and Constitutions concerning Ecclesiastick Persons to regulate them in the Exercise of their Ministrie and Government made by him in Church affairs according to his Royal Wisdom by vertue of his Supream Authoritie these do homologate the Supremacie But so it is that the Accepters of the Indulgence have done this Therefore c. The Minor is uncontrovertable certaine from the Councils disposing of them and ordering of them to such Kirks as they pleased and their yeelding thereunto and accepting of Instructions Orders Acts and Constitutions made by vertue of the Supremacie to regulate them in the exercise of their Ministrie all which hath been cleared above The Major is manifest from this That to be willingly disâ—osed of by a Power is to homologate it and to receive Instructions Orders Acts and Constitutions from a Power is to homologat it By homologating a Power I understand an acknowledgment of such a Power in such a Person by a sutable and answerable compliance therewith and yeelding to it or Acting under it And this may be materially as well as formally done implicitly as well as explicitly by the Intention of the deed as well as by the Intention of the doer As he who obeyeth an Usurper and acteth under him in some place of trust and receiveth Insâ—ructions from him for to regulate him doth homologate that Usurped power by his very deed though he should hate the Usurper and the Usurpation both and really wish he were thrust from his Usurpation altogether and would possibly concurre thereunto himself It cannot weaken this Argument to say that the Indulged Persons never did nor will owne the Supremacy but plainly disown it For though I am ready to beleeve this to be true yet the Argument holdeth for I speak not of a Positive Explicit Formal Intentional and Expresse Homologating but of a Virtual Implicit Material Homologating and such as is included in the deed and work it self abstracting from the Intention of the Worker which is but extrinsick and accidental as to this And that the accepting of the Indulgence is an homologating and a virtual acknowledging of this Supremacy is clear from what is said though the Indulged should intend no such thing IV. Hovv it is injurious unto the Povver of the People A Fourth Ground of our dissatisfaction with the Indulgence is the wrong that is â—ereby done unto the People as to their Power and Privilege of Free Election of their Pastor In the accepting of the Indulgence there was the accepting of a Charge of a Particular Flock without the previous due Call free Election and Consent of the People this holdeth as to such of the Indulged as were sent to other Churches than their own The meer Appointment Order and Designation of the Civil Magistrat was all the Ground of this Relation and was the only thing that made them Pastors to such a people together with the Consent of the Paâ—ron This was a way of entrie unto a Pastoral Charge that our Principles cannot assort with wanting either precept or precedent in the pure primitive times Our Divines have abundantly shown the necessity of the previous Call of the People unto a Ministers Admission to a Charge See Mr Gillespy in his Miscel. Questions Quest. 2. Nor need I hold forth the iniquitie of entering by Patrons whereof our Par. 1649. were fully sensible when the Church was restored to her Privilege conforme to our First Book of Discipline Chap 4. Concerning Ministers and their lawful Election And to the Second Book Chap. 12. It will be here said possibly That they obtained the full and unanimous consent of the people But I Answere 1. I doubt if this was either universally sought or obtained 2. Where it was had it was but a meer bâ—inde and to me a meer prostituting of â—hat Appointment and Order of Christ rather than any conscientious Observation thereof For 3. This call of the People ought to be a free Election and Choise but here was no free Election left unto them but whether they did consent or not the Person designed by the Council was to be set over them 4. The free Election of the People should go before the Perâ—ons Designation to that Charge and become the Foundation of his Relation to that Flock but here it was posteriour unto the Councils Deâ—ignation and was a meer precarious thing coming in ex post facto 5. This Call and Election of the People was not in the least presupposed as any way requisite either in the Kings Letter or Councils Nomination and Election 6. Nor did they make any mention hereof when before the Council nor make exception against the Councils Order or Collation until this was had 7. Nor did they testifie their Dissatisfaction with or protest against the unlawful usurped Interest of the Patron and his necessarily prerequisite Consent 8. Did such as wanted this unanimous Call or Consent of the People give back the Councils Warrand as weak and insufficient 2. I would ask whether they look upon themselves as the fixed Pastors of those particular Flocks and Churches or not If they own themselves for fixed Pastors what is become of their relation to their Former Charges They cannot be Pastors of both places for we owne no Pluralities nor can it be said that the Councils meer Act did loose their Former Relation and make it null And whether they protested at their entrie to this new charge that it was without prejudice to their Former Relation when the Lord should open a free passage in his good Providence to returne I know not If they look
as Christ never made mention of in his Law yea some where of do directly militate against Christs Prescriptions Doth not their receiving of these Instructions or Prescriptions which were contained in his Maj. Letter say that the Prescriptions of Christ were not full But againe seing they had not freedom to say that they received their Ministrie from Christ alone how could they say that they had their full prescriptions from Christ unless they meant that they had them not from Christ alone And then they must say that they had them partly from some other and that other mâ—st either be the Magistrar or Church Officers not Church-officers for neither had they any call to speak of that here nor doth Church Officers hold forth any Prescriptions but Christs and that in the name of Christ. If that other be the Magistrat than it must either be meant Collaterally or Subordinatly to Christ not Subordinatly for they are not appointed of Christ for that end nor do they as Magistrats act Ministerially but Magisterially not Collaterally For then they should have these Prescriptions equally from the Magistrates as from Christ and the Magistrat should be equal and King of the Church with Christ which is blasphemie More might be here noted but what is said is enough to our purpose at present and what was said above needeth not be here repeated But now we must proceed These fore-mentioned were not all who were that yeer indulged For the same supposed favour was granted to others shortly thereafter as appeareth by these Extracts out of the Register Edinburgh August 3. 1669. THE Persons under-written were licenced to preach at the Kirks after specified viz. Mr Iohn Scot late at Oxnam at the same Kirk Mr William Hammiltoun late at Glasfoord at the Kirk of Evandale Mr Robert Mitchel late at Luss at the same Kirk Mr Iohn Gemmil late at Symming town at the same Kirk Mr Patrick Campbel late at Innerary at the same Kirk Mr Robert Duncanson late at Lochanside at Kildochrennan Mr Andrew Cameron late at Kilsinnan now at Lochead in Kintyre Edinburgh 2. Septemb. 1669. For as much as the Kirk of Pencaitland is now vacant by decease of Mr Alexander Vernor last Minister thereat and there being some questions and legal pursuits before the Judge ordinate concerning the right of Patronage of this Kirk Until the decideing whereof the Kirk will be vacant if remeed be not provided Therefore the Lords of his Maj. Privie Councel in pursuance of his Maj. pleasure expressed in his Letter of the 7. of Iune last have thought fit at this time and for this Vacancie allennerly To appoint Mr Robert Douglas late Minister at Edinburgh to preach and exercise the function of the Ministrie at the said Kirk of Pencait land And it is hereby declared that thir presents shall be without prejudice of the right of Patronage according as the same shall be found and declared by the Judge ordinarie Edinburgh Septemb. 2. 1669. The Persons underwritten were licensed to preach at the Kirks after specified viz. Mr. Matthew Ramsey late at Kilpatrick to preach at Paisley Mr Alexander Hammiltoun late Min. at Dalmenie at the same Kirk Mr Andrew Dalrymple late Min. at Affleck at Dalganie Mr Iames Fletcher late Min. at Neuthcome at the same Kirk Mr Andrew Me-Claine late Min. at Craigneis at Kilchattan Mr Donald Morison late at Kilmaglais at Ardnamurchant Edinburgh Septemb. last 1669. The Persons following were ordained to preach at the Kirks after specified viz. Mr Iohn Stirling at Hounam Mr Robert Mowat at Harriot Mr Iames Hammiltoun at Egleshame Mr Robert Hunter at Downing Mr Iohn Forrester at Tilliallan with Mr Andrew Reid infirme Edinburgh Decemb. 9. 1669. Mr Alexander Blair at Galstown Mr Iohn Primrose at Queensferrie Mr David Brown at Craigie Mr Iohn Craufurd at Lamingtoun with Mr Iohn Hammiltoun aged and infirme Mr Iames Vetch at Machline Edinburgh Decemb. 16. 1669. Mr Iohn Bairdie at Paisley with Mr Matthew Ramsey infirme Thus we see there were this Yeer 1669. Five and Thirtie in all licensed and indulged and ordained to preach in the several places specified upon the Councels Order in pursuance of the Kings Royal pleasure And in the following yeer we will finde the same Order given unto and obeyed by others But ere we proceed it will not be amisse that we take notice of the first Act of Parliament holden this yeer Novemb. 16. 1669. and consequently before the last Six were licensed The Act is an Act asserting his Majesties Supremacy over all Persons and in all Causes Ecclesiastical Whereby what was done by the Councel in pursuance of his Majesties Pleasure signified by his Letter in the matter of granting these Indulgences is upon the matter confirmed and ratified by Parliament when His Maj. Supremacy is so ampliated and explained as may comprehend within its verge all that Ecclesiastick Power that was exerced or ordained to be exerced in the granting of the Indulgence with its Antecedents Concomitants and Consequences And a sure way is laid for carrying on the same designe of the Indulgence in all time coming The Act is as followeth Nov. 16. 1669. THE Estates of Parliament having seriously considered how necessare it is for the Good and Peace of the Church and State That his Maj. Power and Authority in Relation to Matters and Persons Ecclesiastical be more clearly asserted by an Act of Parliament Have therefore thought fit it be Enacted Asserted and Declared Like as his Maj. with Advice and Consent of his Estates of Parliament doth hereby Enact Assert and Declare That his Maj. hath the Supreame Authority and Supremacy over all Persons and in all Causes Ecclesiastical within this His Kingdom And that by vertue thereof the Ordering and Disposal of the external Government and Policy of the Church doth properly belong to His Maj. and His Successours as an inherent right to the Crown And that His Maj. and His Successours may Settle Enact and Emit such Constitutions Acts and Orders concerning the Administration of the External Government of the Church and the Persons imployed in the same and concerning all Ecclesiastical meetings and matters to be proposed and determined therein as they in their Royal Wisdom shall think fit which Acts Orders and Constitutions being Recorded in the Books of Councel and duely published are to be observed and obeyed by all his Maj. Subjects any Law Act or Custome to the contrary notwithstanding Like as His Maj. with Advice and Consent foresaid doth Rescind and Annul Lawes Acts and Clauses thereof and all Customes and Constitutions Civil or Ecclesiastick which are contrary to or inconsistent with His Majesties Supremacie as it is hereby asserted And declares the same Void and Null in all time coming Concerning the Irreligiousness Antichristianisme and Exorbitancie of this Explicatory and as to some things Ampliatory Act and Assertion of the Kings Supremacy in Church-affairs much yea very much might be said but our present business calleth us to speak of it only
Authoritie of Presbyters turning the Ministers of Jesus Christ into the Prelats jurney men making Curates of them only for preaching and intimating the Bishops mandats And what else doe I in this case but make the Ministerie of the Gospel in my Person Immediatly dependant in the exercise of it upon the arbitriment of the Civil Magistrat 5. As for the Permission and Allowance I have to preach when confined This Permission seemeth very fair while I look on it abstractly without relation to the rest of the Particular circumstances of the Act for this would look like opening the door in part which the Magistrat himself had shut but while I take it complexly with what else is joyned with it it doth presently carry another â—ace like some pictures or medals that have two or three different aspects to the eyes of the beholder For Permission to preach in any vacant Church within the Kingdome is so very great a favour as for which I would desire to bless God and thank hiâ— Maj. most heartily But take it without the praevious Call of the people the Authoritie and Assistance of a Presbyterie as it may be had and take it without the exercise of Discipline and Government but what is Congregational and so it is â—ame Againe take it with the Confinment and other claggs and caveaâ—s contained in the 2. Act Or take it with the burden of being obliged to follow all matters formerly referable to Presbyteries and Synods before these Presbyteries and Synods which are now constitute by Bishops and their Deâ—egats and so it is nothing but that same Accommodation which we formerly had in our offer from the Bishop and did refuse And take it yet with the robbing of our owne Congregations and with the depriving of three parts of foure of the whole rest of the Land and then I have it to consider whether this my Permission to preach be not the putting of my neck under a heavier yoke than it could be under before 6. The last Reason for brevity is from the Affinity with and dependance this Act of his Maj. Royal Indulgence hath upon the late explanatorie Act of his Maj. Supremacie which I desire with sorrow of heart to look upon as the greatest Incroachment can be made upon the Crown and Authority of Jesus Christ who is only King and Lawgiver of his Church upon Earth as will be evident by comparing the two Acts together For the Act of his Maj. Supremacie besides the narrative containes two principal parts viz. 1 The Assertorie of his Maj. Supremacie which is the main Theam proposed to be explained in these Words The Estates of Parliament do hereby Enact Assert and Declare that His Majest hath the supreame Authoritie and Supremacie over all Persons and in all Causes Ecclesiastick within this Kingdom 2. The Explanatorie part followes in so many most comprehensive and extensive Branches and Articles thus That by vertue thereof the Ordering and Disposal of the external Government of the Church doth properly belong to his Maj. and his Successours as an inherent righâ— of the Crown and that his Maj. and Successours may Settle Enact Emit such Constitutions Acts Orders concerning the Administration of the external Government of the Church and the Persons employed in the same and concerning all Ecclesiastical meetings and matters to be proposed and determined therein as they in their Royal Wisdome shall â—hink fit Againe the Act of his Maj Royal Indulgence which is the exercise and actual application of his Supremacie in matters Ecclesiastick may be taken up in these particulars comprehensively 1 The nomination and election of such and such Ministers to such and such respective places 2 A power to plant and transplant put out and put in Ministers to the Church 3 The framing and prescribing Rules and Instructions for limiting Ministers in the exercise of the Ministerial Office 4 The ordaining Inferiour Magistrats as Sherifs Justices c. to informe the Councel every six moneths under highest paines anent the carriage of Indulged Ministers and how they observe the foresaid Rules 5 The Confining of licensed Ministers to one small Corner of the Kingdome and declaring all other Places and Congregations whatsoever within this Nation to be uncapable of any share of this Royal Favour except such places only as are exptesly contained in the Act itself Now that these Particulars of the Act of Indulgence are of the same nature and kinde with the Articles Explanatorie of his Maj. Supremacie will demonstratively appear by this plaine Argument viz. To Settle Enact Emit Constitutions Acts and Orders concerning Matters Meetings and Persons Ecclesiastick according to their Royal pleasure is the very substance and definition of his Majest Supremacie as it is explained by his Estates of Parliament But the Act of his Majest Indulgence in the whole five fornamed particulars thereof is only to Settle Enact and Emit such Constitutions Acts and Orders concerning matters and Meetings and Persons Ecclesiastical according to Royal pleasure Therefore the Act of his Maj. Indulgence is the substance and definition of his Maj. Supremacie as it is explained by his Estates of Parliament The Rules and Instructions for limiting Ministers in the exercise of their Office as also the rest of the two forenamed Particulars of the Indulgence are such as I declare I cannot accept of them or any other favour whatsoever upon such termes and conditions because they containe the down-right exercise of Erastianisme as I humbly conceive and a discretive judgment of such Acts as a man resolving to practise can not be denyed him unless men be turned into bruits and so be ruled no more as reasonable creatures namely the Magistrat by his proper and elicit Acts doing that which is purely Spiritual and Ecclesiastick as a Nomothetick Head and Lawgiver framing such Lawes and Constitutions Ecclesiastick as are not competent for any Ministerial or Declarative Power to enact or impose but of that Power only which is absolutely Soveraigne and whatsoever will militat against an Ecclesiastick Person to arrogat to himself to be Christs Vicar on Earth and a visible Head to give and make Lawes for the Church according to his pleasure The same also will make much against any other though the greatest in the World to assume to himself this Prerogative so long as he can produce no divine warrant for this claime A more particular consideration of these Rules and other Particulars I must needs for brevity forbear My Noble Lord. HAving in the singleness of my heart and I trust without any just ground of offence given this short and sober account of the Reasons why I have not made use of his Majest Royal favour and Indulgence And being fully perswaded in my Conscience that both Magistracie and Ministery are Gods Ordinance no wayes destructive but mutually helpful one to another so that I can not but earnestly long That the Lord who hath the hearts of Kings and Rulers in his hand would put
be not ordained and preferred of God that he should be a judge of Matters and Causes Spiritual of which there is a controversie in the Church yet he is questionless judge of his own Civil Act about spiritual things namely of defending them in his own Dominions and of approving or tollerating the same And if in this business he judge and determine according to the Wisdome of the Flesh and not according to the Wisdome which is from above he is to render an account thereof before the Supream Tribunal But to what purpose is all this waste of Words Doth he or any man think that we deny to the Magistrate a judgment of his own Civil Act or that we suppose that Mr H. and others have betrayed the Cause because they granted to the Magistrate a Power Objectively Ecclesiastical so far as to judge thus of his own Civil Act of Tolerating such a way within his Dominions No that is not the ground we go upon But this we say that if Mr H. or others do inferre from this power of judging in reference to his own Act competent to the Magistrate that the Magistrate may Impose Rules and Injunctions to regulat Ministers in the exercise of their Ministrie then they have betrayed the Cause And either they must inferre this therefrom or they speak nothing to the purpose And himself lately told us as much as all this Now let him or any man show me where any Anti-Erastian Divine reasoneth thus or draweth such an Inference from this Power Objectively Ecclesiastical Yea I much questione if Vedelius or Maccovius his Collegue did ever so argue And sure I am the Author of the CXI Propositions Propos. 45. c. cleareth up that Difference betwixt these two Powers which is taken from the Object and Matter about which And Prop. 54. he showeth that those things wherein the Ecclesiastical Power is exercised are preaching of the Word c. And Prop. 55. That though the Civil Magistrate is occupied about the same things yet it is but so far as concerneth the outward disposing of Divine things in this or that Dominion Nay I must say that I cannot see how this will follow That Magistrates may prescribe such Rules unto Ministers to regulate them in the exercise of their Ministrie because of a Power granted to them to judge of their own Civil Act about spiritual things more than that every Church-Member may do the like for in that Prop. as the Words cited do clear the Author giveth that same Power to every Member of the Church respectively and how can it be denied to them or to any rational man Nay let me say more Have not Ministers and every private man this power of judging of his own Act about things Civil and in this respect also an Objectivly Civil Power Will it therefore follow that they can prescribe Rules to regulate Magistrats in the exercise of their functioâ— And if a Magistrat should come to the Prelates or Pop's Bar and take a Paper from him containing such Instructions and give this onely as his Apologie that he acknowledged a Power Objectivly Civil competent unto the Pope or Prelate because they had power to judge of their own acts about civil things would not others have cause to judge that that Magistrate had denied the Co-ordination of the Poâ—ers had professed his Subordination as Magistrate to Pope or Prelate Now Verte Tabulas and see how the parallel runneth in our case and then judge From the foregoing discourse and particularly from that cited out of the CXI Propositions our Informer now a Disputer Inferreth That he hopeth no man in reason can alledge Mr H's recedeing from the Principles of this Church in the matter But for my part though I will not judge of the Thoughts or Intentions of Mr H. or of any other of his Brethren yet considering the work it self as this Informer hath represented it unto me in its circumstances I cannot but say that in the thing and as to the Intentio operis there was a recedeing not onely from the Principles of the Church of Scotland but also from the Zeal of our former Worthies who ventured all to transmit the truth pure from Erastianisme and Caesario-Papal Invasions Encroachments And from the strick Obligations lying on us all to stand to the Truth and to the Defence of the Power and Privileges of the Church against the Usurpation and Encroachments of the Magistrates seeking alwayes to inhaunce all Church-power into their own hands not out of love to promove the Glory of God and the real good of souls but out of a desire to have the Ministrie and the outward Administrations of grace enslaved unto their wills Is it not certaine out of what ground this Indulgence did grow and how the Act of Supremacy which no Conscientious Minister or Christian can owne or acknowledge as it was occasioned and necessitated by the Indulgence so it became the Charter thereof and gave legal life and being unto all that followed And was it not as certaine that a Designe to procure a Requiem to themselves in all their Usurpations and intolerable Invasions of Church-Power and overturning of â—he whole Work of God and withall to make way for the further Enslaving of the Church and of all Church-Power to their â—usts did midwife this Bastard-Child into the World And could it be uncertaine to rational observing Persons what was the Designe of King and Councel in-giving these Instructions First and Last Yea was not the whole Business so carried on from First to Last as half an eye might have discovered a wicked Designe therein And was not the Explicatory Act of the Supremacie a more than sufficient proof of an Erastian Spirit that led and acted them in some things beyond what the Anti-Christian Spirit could for shame prompt the Pope to arrogate to himself And when from these things and many others such like yea from the whole Procedour of King Parliament and Council in their Actings since this last Revolution began it is more than sufficiently clear what they did and do Intend will any say it was not their Duty while so Providentially called to witness to the Truth to give a more Plain Full Ministerial and Christian Testimony to the Truth which our Predecessours maintained with so much Hazard Expence of bloud Loss of Liberty Tossings Imprisonments Confinements Condemnation to Death and Banishments c. and which we were so solemnely sworne to stand to And will any Ingenuous Christian say that all circumstances being considered the Testimony given was such as became men standing in the Fields for the Truth of Christ and engaged in point of Conscience and Christian Valour Honour and Crediâ—e to cover the ground they stood on with their dead Bodies rather than cede to such a manifest Encroaching and Invading Enemie Will any who readeth the carriage of our valiant and renowned Worthies in opposing the Encroachments of King Iames who yet never did nor for